Subject: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:27:43 -0500 (EST)

for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
do in the question of the sub-ip area

I think we should go with the status quo (with the IESG selecting two
suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers to manage the area next March)

I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do otherwise in the
next week.

Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas
was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but
more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting
to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last
temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years)  But the feedback we got in
Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change.

temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years)  But the feedback we got in
Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change.
And any move at this time to move the WGs would be seen as a slap in
the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) opinion
expressed in Atlanta.

Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the consensus and
ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon refection I'm not sure that is the
right thing either - partially  because as Randy has pointed out, we do
not have a clear mission statement for such an area but mostly because
enough of the WGs are close enough to finishing up that we whould have a
quite small area in 6 months to a year and an area with only 2 or 3  
working groups seems a bit of a waste.  But if there is a long-term
future for sub-IP work in the IETF then aditional working groups may
be in the offering.  We need the time to reflect on what that future      
should be.

So I think we should continue as-is until:
        1/ the WGs which will finish "soon" finish
        2/ we (the IESG, IAB & ietf community) figure out what role  
           sub-ip should play in the IETF in the long term

but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list and
to the IESG directly

Scott

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 10:34:02 -0800

Scott Bradner wrote:
> volunteers to manage the area next March)
> 

I'll add that most of the attendees at this meeting in Atlanta were from 
the WGs themselves. It is unsurprising that the overwhelming position of 
that group is to maintain the status quo. Moving them is definitely seen 
as unwelcome change from within the groups themselves.

It would be useful to hear from the community at large regarding this 
issue, rather than letting the group decide (essentially) for itself.

FWIW, I have yet to see a substantive justification for the _creation_ 
of a new area yet. I, and others, have pointed out that the 'status quo' 
here is to let the area dissolve on schedule.

Joe

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:15:23 -0800

Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs...  Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.

You might not think that's a fair analogy, but it's really the constituents who
are most impacted by the decision, not the IETF as a whole.  I'm not sure why
the other IETF WGs or areas would as a whole care about SUBIP, except on
principle.  And it's not like they don't have a voice (this mailing list and
particularly the plenaries).

I think the request for comments might be targeted at a slightly larger audience
(other WGs in the Routing Area, Transport Area, Operations Area, perhaps) whose,
since not everyone subscribes to the spam abatement, er, ietf mailing list.

-Vach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe
> Touch
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:34 AM
> To: Scott Bradner
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
>
>
> Scott Bradner wrote:

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:41:49 -0800

> the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best

We don't let WGs decide the fate of WG docs; the IESG and RFC editors do 
that. The WGs make their - sometimes myopic - decisions, and the IESG 
decides how to proceed for the community.

By closer analogy, we certainly don't let BOFs decide whether to be WGs 
themselves.

Joe

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:55:12 -0500

> Let's particularly ignore the fact that

increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of "the best possible
outcome" is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the interests of the larger community. 

Keith

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:02:25 -0800

And is that because members of the "larger" community were not allowed to
participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests?
Because, by your assertion, if they had participated, they would have been part
of making the WG decision, which would therefore not have been in the interest
of that remaining larger community :-)

-Vach

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 15:22:31 -0500

> participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests?

I've certainly seen such participation discouraged, and the contributions
of "outside" participants dismissed as irrelevant, by even working group 
chairs.  I've also seen working groups drastically exceed, and in some
cases ignore, charters which were designed to limit the harm they
could do.

And your argument is a fallacy.  The workings of special interest groups can 
and often do have a significant effect on the general population, but nobody 
can afford the time and energy it takes to keep track of every special 
interest group that might affect him.

Keith

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:32:43 -0800

Here's my personal opinion.

I think we have two suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers :-)

I think the area's WGs need ADs who have been close enough to keep the
continuity of relations with other standards bodies, the past work, etc.

Regarding whether there is a need for an area long-term, it would depend on how
we foresee the charter of each WG developing.

ccamp: no opinion, since I haven't been keeping pace
gsmp: their work is nearly done (according to my interpretation of Avri's
comments)
ipo: no opinion, since I haven't been keeping pace
mpls: long-term
ppvpn: possibly long-term
tewg: their work is nearly done too (from the tewg minutes posted by Jim Boyle)

We "don't have visibility into the next year", so we should keep the area as is,
which would allow the greatest progress in those WGs that are close to done.  We
will also know better what to do with the remaining WGs.  If at that point,
there's still work to be done, but not enough long-term WGs to warrant an area,
I am perfectly happy to close the area, and move ccamp and mpls to RTG and ppvpn
to (TSV | RTG).

-Vach

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Scott
> Bradner
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
>
>
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:37:32 -0800

> opposed to, the interests of the larger community. 

I have two problems with this statement.  First, while I am all for 
being critical of our processes for the purposes of improving them, we 
as a group should avoid making these sorts of generalizations.  Say what 
you will about Dan Bernstein.  At least his complaints are specific and 
backed up.

Second, I believe the complaints that are alluded to have been raised 
again and again and again.  Can we as a community learn to agree to 
disagree on points of architecture, once decisions have been made?

Eliot

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:31:29 -0800

At 11:15 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
>Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the 
>CALSCH WG decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs...  Let's particularly ignore 
>the fact that the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in 
>getting the best possible outcome.

AFAIK, we're not discussing document status; we're discussing working 
groups and the area that contains them. The documents will be published. 
And by the way, what do you think a "last call" is? We *do* in fact ask 
folks to comment on drafts being published outside their immediate area of 
concern.

As presented, we are discussing six working groups (ccamp, gsmp, ipo, mpls, 
ppvpn, and tewg), down from an original nine if memory serves, and of which 
four are likely to complete their work and dissolve during the coming year 
anyway. So we're really talking about two working groups: ccamp and mpls. 
The comparison is to Transport (27 working groups, up from a year ago) or 
Security (17 working groups), and User Services (now closed, with both of 
its working groups).

If there were new working groups spawning here, one might be able to argue 
that there is work justifying asking one or two people to dedicate their 
time as area directors to managing the working groups. It seems to me that 
moving the two continuing-to-be-active working groups to an active home 
when the others close is just good-management-101. If we're going to keep 
the area open, there needs to be a solid justification for doing so, and 
it's not there.

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:38:08 -0800

You normally don't get to last call without having gotten the WG's opinion on
whether it should even go to the IESG.  I think the IESG expects that due
diligence from the WG.  It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had
an majority that wished the area to continue, at least for the time being.  I
don't want that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion".  The
general solicitation of input on the ietf mailing list (and, as I suggested in
my email, we should probably have included other RTG and TSV working groups -
not just those involved in SUB-IP related work), is like the last call.

I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with
sub-ip.  To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 (status
quo).

I am of the opinion that if the target for 3 WGs (ipo, tewg, gsmp) is to close
soon, then keeping the area (with the same ADs) open temporarily long enough for
the continuity needed to bring stuff to closure is also good management-101.
I'm not very bullish on ppvpn closing on schedule.

I don't think ccamp and mpls will close that soon.  So, I would expect that
these two would go into RTG and ppvpn (because of its affinity to pwe3) would go
into TSV, but perhaps it may end up in RTG.

-Vach

> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:31 PM
> Subject: RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
>
>

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:50:43 -0500

> The  workings  of  special  interest  groups  can  and  often  do  have  a
> significant effect  on the general  population, but nobody can  afford the
> time and  energy it takes  to keep track  of every special  interest group
> that might affect him.

Often  it  seems as  though  the  WGs reflect  the  broad  consensus of  the
community, and the IESG is the special interest group.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:54:01 -0800

At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
>It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that 
>wished the area to continue, at least for the time being.  I don't want 
>that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion".

I don't believe it is being ignored. It is in fact a large part of the 
reason the ADs are asking this question, and BTW the fact that they asked 
the area folks the question shows an open-ness of mind. They take a lot of 
!@#$%^ from the community, I wish the community would notice when they do 
something well, and speak as loudly about it.

But I should hope that not only would the wishes of the folks in the area 
be looked at, but the wear and tear on the ADs, and the management 
principles that apply. It has to be a sensible decision on all counts, not 
just the presently-popular one.

>sub-ip.  To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 

which is to say, wait until the work winds down, and then close the 
temporary area. I'm glad we agree on that; from your last email, it sounded 
like we didn't. If you go back and read both emails that I have posted to 
this list, I have said as much, and I think that's pretty much what Scott 
said he came down to in the end.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:17:28 -0800

FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths,
but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at
this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps,
mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in
Atlanta a strong message from the SUB-IP community against closing the
area at this time. IMO our best shot now is to continue as is, and
revisit the question in a year or when the situation with "about-to-
conclude" WGs clarifies.

Alex

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:07:28 -0500

> you will about Dan Bernstein.  At least his complaints are specific and

Sometimes it's better to be imprecise than to point fingers and name names.
However I am seriously considering pointing fingers and naming names.

> disagree on points of architecture, once decisions have been made?

Oh, you're talking about *that* group.  I had almost forgotten about them.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 19:09:00 -0500

> community, and the IESG is the special interest group.

In my experience, IESG has tremendous breadth - considerably exceeding that 
of any single WG.

Keith

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:50:43 -0800

My question is, what harm will be done to the WG's ability to deliver
and close by moving them? If there were are real need for cross group
coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer.
Instead we have a situation where these groups need to coordinate with a
real area to accomplish their work, but feel they need dedicated area
directors to do that. 

The only reason I can see that this would make any difference is if the
AD's in the natural home area were particularly critical of the work. If
that were the case, it would be difficult to coordinate with that area
as the charter requires, so I can't see that it really matters in the
long run. The only real gain here is the ability to run along under the
'natural home' AD's radar until the IESG gets the doc. That could be
good because it allows the group to bake the ideas before being
criticized, but it could also be bad because it makes the whole IESG
look like the bad guys when a doc is rejected after WG last call. 

If the groups are really expected to close within a year anyway, they
must be sufficiently far along that a change in management will not
derail their efforts. If that is not the case, how would they survive if
sub-IP were a standing area and the nomcom decided to change the AD? 

In any case, I believe the burden of proof needs to be on those who want
the area continued as to why close coordination between the WGs is a
more expedient approach to task completion than simply putting them back
in their natural homes.

Tony

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Alex Zinin
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:17 PM
> To: Scott Bradner
> Cc: [email-masked]
> FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat 
> different paths, but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm 
> personally skeptical at this moment about SUB-IP becoming a 
> permanent area (area overlaps, mission statement, expected 
> number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in Atlanta a strong 
> message from the SUB-IP community against closing the area at 
> this time. IMO our best shot now is to continue as is, and 
> revisit the question in a year or when the situation with 
> "about-to- conclude" WGs clarifies.
> 
> Alex
> 
> > for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we 
> should do 
> > in the question of the sub-ip area
> 
> > I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do 
> otherwise in 
> > the next week.
> 
> > Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other 
> > areas was the right thing to do, not because of any 
> particular event, 
> > but more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was 
> > getting to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should 
> note that the 
> > last temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years)  But the 
> feedback we got in 
> > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a 
> > change. And any move at this time to move the WGs would be 
> seen as a 
> > slap in the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) 
> > opinion expressed in Atlanta.
> 
> > Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the 
> > consensus and ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon 
> refection I'm not 
> > sure that is the right thing either - partially  because as 
> Randy has 
> > pointed out, we do not have a clear mission statement for 
> such an area 
> > but mostly because enough of the WGs are close enough to 
> finishing up 
> > that we whould have a quite small area in 6 months to a 
> year and an area with only 2 or 3
> > but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list 
> > and to the IESG directly
> 
> > Scott
> 
>

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:19:20 +1100

Eric Rosen wrote:
	[..]
> community, and the IESG is the special interest group.

Given that the IETF *is* a special interest group, I take this as a feature
rather than a bug.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:07:06 -0800

At 4:50 PM -0800 12/9/02, Tony Hain wrote:
>If there were are real need for cross group

A presentation at the SubIP Area meeting in Atlanta drove home the 
point that the amount of coordination in the area was not as high as 
expected when the area started. The originally-envisioned hourglass 
(with CCAMP in the middle) turned into spaghetti. This is not to say 
that the spaghetti is bad, just that the proposed coordination didn't 
help keep them on track and therefore might be less needed than some 
are saying.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:38:52 -0500

> Keith> In  my  experience,  IESG   has  tremendous  breadth  -  considerably
> Keith> exceeding that of any single WG. 
> 
> You must be  joking.  

No, I'm dead serious.  Almost every IESG member I've worked with is seriously
competent over a wide range of subject matter.  Our selection process isn't
perfect but I've repeatedly been amazed at its ability to identify and recruit
brilliant and experienced individuals.

Keith

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:34:10 -0500

You must be  joking.  Or perhaps you  just mean that you tend  to agree with
the IESG's program of trying to preserve the academic, ivory tower vision of
the  Internet  against the  advance  of  the  barbarians (i.e.,  marketplace
forces). 

Naturally  every special interest  group claims  to be  the defender  of the
values  of  the  larger community.   Since  there  is  no way  to  determine
objectively  what is  or  is not  in  the "larger  community's" interest,  a
properly functioning IESG  would not try to impose  a particular vision, but
would  just work  to  ensure  that the  output  of the  WGs  is of  suitable
technical quality. (Of course, every  attempt to impose by fiat a particular
vision  of  the  future is  portrayed  as  an  attempt to  ensure  technical
quality.)

Keith> I've certainly  seen ... the contributions  of "outside" participants
Keith> dismissed as irrelevant, by even working group chairs. 

Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd  that one of the problems with the IETF
is  that the  WG  chairs  aren't forceful  enough  in dismissing  irrelevant
input.  Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder.  I tend to think
that irrelevant input should be dismissed  more often by the chairs, as long
as "irrelevant"  doesn't become  a smokescreen for  "doesn't accord  with my
personal vision of the future."

Keith> I've also seen  working groups drastically exceed, and  in some cases
Keith> ignore, charters  which were  designed to limit  the harm  they could
Keith> do. 

In cases  like this,  the charters are  often dictated  by the IESG,  do not
necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may
place arbitrary  "prior restraint" restrictions on  the solution.  Sometimes
it's  difficult  to do  a  good  job while  trying  to  strictly follow  the
charter.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:07:58 +0100

i agree w/ this, currently my preference goes to 3/ and
as suggested we should use this time to have a longer term
thought about the future of this area, may be we should use
this time (between now and this period to be defined) in
order to come out with a consistent solution by then, do
things in hurry today might be harmful in the future.

for instance, i've seen many ways to move wg's i have also
my opinion on this but it is based on a perception of the
current situation that may be too close from the reality
and the day-to-day efforts of sub-ip area working groups
(so that we see only the details, being myself active in
this domain it is difficult to step back and take another
view of the reality) or too far (so that we don't have
a good perception of what's really going on), the issue at
which distance do we have to place ourself in order to give
this answer is quite complex, this period of time wouldn't
be wasteful in any case

if we can use our experience in order to determine what a
consensual future might become in this domain rather than
apply some stringent principles this might be beneficial
for the whole community; last, rejection or avoidance is
here probably too simplistic as a good response to a real
concern for a part of the ietf community (the one active in
the sub-ip area)

thanks,
- dimitri.

Alex Zinin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : [email-masked]
Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
E-mail : [email-masked]
Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:20:19 -0500

> vision  of  the  future is  portrayed  as  an  attempt to  ensure  technical

..

> personal vision of the future."

The IETF has to have a unifying vision, or else the Internet will be a
hodgepodge.  It can have different facets at different layers, and the
IETF should limit itself to activities where that vision is important,
but you need one.  The vision may come from the participants, but the
IESG is the focal point where that vision is expressed (imposed). 

> it's  difficult  to do  a  good  job while  trying  to  strictly follow  the

Well, that would be a sign of AD weakness.  The vision requires input,
and the IESG does need to learn, but there needs to be integration.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:27:13 -0500

> vision  of  the  future is  portrayed  as  an  attempt to  ensure  technical

And attempts at ensuring technical quality by quashing competent implementations
of stupid ideas is seen as "imposing by fiat"? ;)

Remember that just because something seems to be a good idea in the WG does not
mean that it's a good idea overall.  Forest for the trees.....

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:04:56 -0800

> the  Internet  against the  advance  of  the  barbarians (i.e.,  marketplace

On the "academic, ivory tower vision of the Internet" - that would be 
the part that actually works?

Or the market forces that brought us NATs, ATM, etc.?

Internet users live IN that ivory tower; marketplace forces made money 
on it too. It's more real than it may appear.

Joe

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:51:47 -0800

Er, toning down the rhetoric a bit, it is worthwhile to ask two questions:
- Does keeping the WGs in one area help significantly?
- Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:03:41 -0800

Paul,

> - Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly?

I think it would be worthwhile to ask the following three questions:

 1. Are we discussing whether to shut down asap the WGs that are 
    presently in the sub-IP area ?

 2. Are we discussing whether to move these WGs from one area to 
    another, while making sure that such move would have no impact 
    on the work that is going on in these WGs ?

 3. Are we discussing whether it would be possible to shut down the 
    WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area  without stating this 
    explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs 
    to some other areas ?

Yakov.

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:13:51 -0800

>     explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs

Based on the discussion this week, these are all very good questions.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:08:20 -0800

>     presently in the sub-IP area ?

maybe some folk are.  in fact, the ietf is now big enough that
surely someone is.  but i don't think it is one of the alternatives
which harald, bert, scott, the iesg, ... put forward

>     on the work that is going on in these WGs ?

that was one of the alternatives.  though possibly some folk thought
it might have a positive impact on the work going on in the wgs.

>     explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs 

indeed, you may be discussing that.  seems you are.  but i don't think
harald, bert, scott, the iesg ... were doing so.

randy

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:59:46 -0800

> I think it would be worthwhile to ask the following three questions:

I do too. But it wasn't part of any of the discussion thus far, and is 
completely independent of needing a SubIP area.

All the alternatives that involved moving assumed the current groups 
relocate under areas they are _already_ supposed to be working closely 
with anyway.

>     explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs 

If we want to shut a WG, one would hope there are better and easier ways 
than to target the entire area.

Joe

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 20:25:58 -0600

It would seem that the primary objection
to #3 (keep sub-IP for a while until some of
the WGs finish) is that it may never actually
be dissolved.  Other than that concern, it 
would seem that #3 is the most popular option.
I propose option #3.2 - pick a definite date 
some months from now to dissolve sub-IP.
That would allow several WGs time to wrap
up without extending sub-IP indefinitely.
I'm not too familiar with the area, so someone
else would probably be more qualified to choose
the cut off date.  However, for the sake of 
discussion I propose to continue sub-IP until 
9-01-03.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray B. Morris
[email-masked]
http://www.WebmastersGuide.com

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:38:52 -0500

Keith

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:08:20 -0800

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:08:20 -0800

randy